Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-08 - SupplementalsCannabis Ordinance Planning Commission November 8, 2023 Background •Cannabis has been legal in California •Proposition 215 (1996) –Legalized Medicinal Cannabis •Proposition 64 (2016) –Legalized Recreational Cannabis •Series of state laws to regulate the sale of cannabis •2015 Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act •2017 Medical land Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act •2016 –Council directed study •Cross functional staff team •Visit to Colorado jurisdictions to understand impacts •Reported back in May 2016 •Council directed staff to draft ordinances prohibiting Cannabis sales and delivery in the city Background Background •SB 1186 •Signed by Governor in 2022 •Cannot prohibit the retail sale by delivery of medical cannabis •Does not apply to recreational cannabis •Non-Storefront Retail •Allows a cannabis business •No customers allowed on site •Sales done online •Delivery is made to purchaser Code Changes •Redefine Commercial Cannabis Activity •Chapter 8.52 (Cannabis Prohibitions and Regulations) •Chapter 17.32 (Allowed Land Use Regulations) •Chapter 17.148 (Cannabis Definitions) •Allow one Non-Storefront Retail Location •One establishment in City •Allowed in Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment zones with Minor Use Permit •600 foot separation from school, daycare facility or other sensitive use •1,000 foot separation from existing residential dwelling, place of worship, park, playground, recreational facility, hospital or civic building Code Changes •Establish Non-Storefront Medical Cannabis Retail Permit •Administrative permit in addition to the Minor Use Permit •Establish a lottery to determine which business is selected •Renewed Annually •Code Changes •Add new permit as Chapter 5.20 •Add Chapter 17.102 to establish special use regulation Environmental Assessment •This ordinance is not subject to CEQA under the following provisions •15060(c)(2) •15061(b)(3) Public Noticing •Advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 26, 2023 •Individual noticing was not required as this is a citywide ordinance Recommendation •Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 23-29 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance Planning Commission November 8, 2023 DRC2022-00301 Project Overview •Project: –A request to demolish an existing office/warehouse building and its associated parking lot/outdoor storage area and construct two industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 74,387 square-feet. •Entitlement:Design Review DRC2022-00301 •Address:9910 6th Street •Applicant:Newcastle Partners PROJECT SITE Location Street View Surrounding Context Proposed Project •Design Review Permit •Demolish existing structure, parking lot, outdoor storage area •Construct two industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 74,387 square-feet •Parking •Landscaping Site Plan Floor Plan Floor Plan Building 1 Elevations (front building) South East North West Building 2 Elevations (rear building) South East North West Parking Site provides 101 parking spaces, 7 trailer parking spaces, racks for 8 bicycles Landscaping Goals and Policies •General Plan Policy LC-1.9 •New development on vacant and underutilized properties. •New business that is complementary to the surrounding land uses and will provide additional employment opportunities for City residents and the region. Interdepartmental Review •The Fire, Engineering and Building Departments have reviewed the project and have provided conditions of approval included with this staff report. Environmental Assessment •Project is consistent with all applicable General Plan policies. •The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 –In-Fill Development Projects. Public Noticing •Advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 12, 2023. •Notices sent out to all property owners within 1,500 feet on October 11, 2023. To date, staff has not received any responses. •Item continued from Oct. 25, 2023, PC hearing to a date certain. Recommendation •Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the revised Resolution 23-26 approving Design Review DRC2022-00301 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ENG COA #2 (Undergrounding in the Public Right-of-Way)Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1.Lines on the project side of the street. a.Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developer’s expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. 2. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) may be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee amount shall be the City adopted amount times the length of the 6th Street frontage. Based on the current City adopted amounts, the current fair share contribution of $390,532.00* prior to issuance of a building permit.*Note: The City adopted amounts are subject to change annually. ENG COA #5 RCMU Requirements: 1) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (Northside of 6th street) along the project boundary with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the development’s individual telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department 's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. ENG COA #7 General Plan (Vol.2) -Road Network: The project shall comply with the road network as identified in the City's General Plan (Vol 2). Road typology design and priority modes of travel shall be as follows: * 6th Street is classified as a "Bicycle Corridor" In conformance with the "Bicycle Corridor" classification, the following dedication and construction for necessary widening shall be made along the street frontage (measured from street centerline):44 total feet on 6th Street. The street section, from the street centerline to the front property line, shall be as follows: Two 11' vehicle lanes, a 3' buffer, 6' bike lane, and 13' parkway.The parkway shall have a 6' sidewalk adjacent to the property line. Epicenter Master Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga | Planning Commission Meeting | November 8, 2023 Master Plan Contents: 1.The Vision in Context The impetus for and intent of this Master Plan 2.Focus Area Concepts Specific development and improvement ideas for the Plan Area 3.Development Regulations Rules ensuring that each development contributes to the vision 4.Implementation Playbook A working tool for assessing the benefits and tradeoffs of potential development and improvement ideas over time 2 | Epicenter Master Plan Victoria Gardens Epicenter Foothill Blvd Day Creek ChannelGeneral Plan Focus Area 1 The Epicenter is located within Focus Area 1: Downtown Rancho Cucamonga A downtown environment, centered around Foothill Blvd and Victoria Gardens Cucamonga Station is less than a mile from the Epicenter Master Plan Area. 3 | Epicenter Master Plan General Plan Focus Area 1 “Walkable block patterns can be inserted within the large parking surfaces…to generate significant new value for property owners and the community.” (General Plan page 102) Epicenter Master Plan Area Victoria Gardens Foothill Blvd Day Creek Channel 4 | Epicenter Master Plan The Vision and Design Approach Create a walkable framework Support and leverage existing anchors: the Stadium, Sports Center, and Animal Center Attract new, lively uses that complement the existing anchors Activate the area with near-term, tactical improvements and development 5 | Epicenter Master Plan The Vision and Design Approach Create a walkable framework Support and leverage existing anchors: the Stadium, Sports Center, and Animal Center Attract new, lively uses that complement the existing anchors Activate the area with near-term, tactical improvements and development Foster a feasible and sustainable mix of uses over time Provide efficient shared parking Support the downtown environment envisioned by the General Plan 6 | Epicenter Master Plan Lively recreational and animal-related anchors 7 | Epicenter Master Plan Implementation Strategy Adopt this Master Plan Recruit Investment and Development Near-Term Action Items: Build and Activate the Hub (around the Epicenter Green) Longer-Term Vision: Build Around the Hub 8 | Epicenter Master Plan Connecting to Context Foothill Blvd mixed-use, multi- modal corridor •With BRT in the future Rochester Ave north-south connection with bike lanes Arrow Route leading to Milliken Ave and Cucamonga Station Epicenter Master Plan Area Victoria Gardens 9 | Epicenter Master Plan Connecting to Context To nearby commercial, Foothill Blvd, anticipated new housing, and shareable parking To Day Creek and Victoria Gardens To other neighboring complementary uses and shareable parking Victoria Gardens Epicenter Master Plan Area 10 | Epicenter Master Plan A Walkable Framework Epicenter Master Plan Area Primary Streets Secondary Streets Walkable Blocks: Development Sites Open Space Improvements Additional Pedestrian and Bike-Priority Network The Fault Line Promenade Jack Benny DrRochester AveArrow Route Sebastian Way Victory DrStadium Way Stadium Sports Center Animal Center Stadium Way 0’300’Epicenter Master Plan Area 11 | Epicenter Master Plan An Active, Connected Public Realm The Fault Line Promenade 12 | Epicenter Master Plan An Active, Connected Public Realm The Fault Line Promenade 13 | Epicenter Master Plan An Active, Connected Public Realm Creating a Gateway at Rochester Ave and Stadium Way 14 | Epicenter Master Plan Parking Supporting New Activity in the Area Remaining Lots Empty Lot Opportunities Shared Structures Park Once Strategy 15 | Epicenter Master Plan Parking Opportunities Existing Lots on Site Near-term parking opportunity (until Animal Center expands) Sharing Opportunities Pedestrian-friendly routes from nearby parking opportunities Jack Benny DrRochester AveArrow Route Sebastian Way Victory DrStadium Way 0’300’ 250 Spaces Lot A: 205 Spaces Lot B: 254 Spaces Lot C: 296 Spaces Lot F: 118 Spaces Lot D: 130 Spaces 81 Spaces Lot G: 227 Spaces Lot I: 73 Spaces Lot E: 141 Spaces Lot H: 192 Spaces 360 Spaces 263 Spaces 559 Spaces 887 Spaces on adjacent lots 16 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area Concepts Introduction 1)Focus Area North 2)Focus Area South We’ll first discuss near-term action items for each of these areas, followed by the longer-term vision. 17 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items Will be further illustrated on the following slides 18 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #1: Improve the Epicenter Green 19 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #2: Introduce Promenades 20 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #3: Tactical Activation 21 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #4: Improve the Beer Garden 22 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #5: Connect to Sebastian Way 23 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #6: Manage Parking 24 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area North Near-Term Action Items #7: Stadium Programming 25 | Epicenter Master Plan Focus Area South Near-Term Action Items Interim options for the future Animal Center site 26 | Epicenter Master Plan Longer- Term Active frontages line the public realm Compatible supporting uses Shared structured parking supply Animal Center expansion Recreational and animal-oriented uses 27 | Epicenter Master Plan Development Regulations 28 | Epicenter Master Plan Implementation Playbook 29 | Epicenter Master Plan Recommended Text Addition The Master Plan currently refers to the Epicenter Green as a public space and hub of the public realm, along with its adjacent promenades. In the event that private ownership and/or maintenance would better ensure that this open space remain active and well-maintained throughout the year, we propose the following additional language: •“The Epicenter Green and adjacent promenade are critical elements of the public realm. They may be either publicly or privately owned and maintained… •In either case, they shall be publicly accessible for at least 12 hours per day and during regular opening hours of businesses within the Epicenter Master Plan Area… •If made private, more specific requirements shall be identified as part of a development agreement.”Rochester Ave Epicenter Master Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga | November 2023 Thank you! Real Estate Development, Acquisition and Management 17 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach CA, 92660 | t. 949.566.8021 | ccostanzo@costanzoinv.com November 8, 2023 VIA EMAIL (city.clerk@cityofrc.us) Hon. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission c/o Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Comment Letter on Nov. 8 Planning Commission Agenda Item D2 - Proposed Development Code Update Dear Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners: We own the property located at 11425 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, in the Lowes shopping center on the corner of Miliken and Foothill Blvd. A couple of weeks ago we were made aware for the first time that the Planning Commission would be considering potential updates and revisions to the City’s Development Code and consequently requested a continuance to allow us and other commercial property owners impacted by the new Development Code to review the proposed changes. We thank the Planning Commission for granting our continuance request and rescheduling the item for today’s meeting. Since then, we have had the opportunity to revisit the unworkable challenges imposed on owners and tenants of parcels like ours in active commercial shopping centers by the promulgation of the Development Code, and in particular its new formed-based development standards. We have also reviewed the proposed Code amendment in light of these challenges to assess whether the proposed changes would accomplish the City staff’s written stated purpose of making redevelopment feasible on commercial properties in active shopping centers until such time that the center is ready to fully implement the form-based standards. Unfortunately, the proposed changes fall well short of the Code relief required to make commercial redevelopment feasible. In addition, the proposed conditions and findings that would be required in order to utilize such exceptions would frustrate both the City’s and the commercial property owner’s ability to use of such exceptions – even in cases where the project would be one that is supported by the City staff as an interim solution to the transition to form-based standards. A good example of the Code changes being inadequate is in the case of City staff providing relief from the high intensity Floor-Area-Ratio requirement and the residential requirements. These proposed exceptions are much needed and we applaud City staff for proposing them since no property in a commercial shopping center can comply with the new FAR or residential requirements while the shopping center remains as such. But in order to take advantage of both exceptions, parcel owners and tenants would also need relief from a corollary Code requirement 17 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach CA, 92660 | t. 949.566.8021 | ccostanzo@costanzoinv.com Real Estate Development, Acquisition and Management of developing buildings that occupy a minimum of 80% of the frontage adjacent to the street. For illustration purposes, in the case of our 1.3 acre parcel, that would require a building that’s 240’ wide on a 300’ wide / 195’ deep parcel. A building of that width cannot fit on a 1.3 acre parcel – it won’t park and it obstructs visibility to the back anchor and tenants (even if you can find enough tenants to lease it out). There is an outdoor dining exception in the Code that allows outdoor dining area to substitute some of this building placement, but that only offsets 35% of the 80% requirement – not enough to make it fit (e.g., 156’ wide building on 300’ wide property) – and fully utilizing the outdoor exception would be unrealistic (e.g., requiring a massive 74 ft long outdoor dining patio in our example). An exception should have been proposed for this requirement, and without it the City staff and commercial property owners with street frontage will not be able to utilize the FAR and residential exceptions to redevelop these properties. The example illustrated above is only one of several provisions that will continue to frustrate and make infeasible interim commercial redevelopment if the proposed Code amendment is passed as drafted. We have compiled a list of proposed changes to the Code amendment (attached hereto) that we believe are necessary to allow such redevelopment and thereby avoid blight, homeless encampments, tax revenue loss and vacancies in these shopping centers. An earlier version of this list was presented to and discussed with the City’s Deputy Planning Director, Ms. Jennifer Nakamura, last week. It’s important to note that we support the City’s use of a “Major Exceptions” approach to provide flexibility to certain Code requirements instead of changing the Code provision itself. This will allay any City staff concern of risking non-compliance with its housing certification. We truly appreciate the City’s efforts to address some of the issues that were inadvertently created by the promulgation of the General Plan Update and the new Development Code. However, as a developer with thirty years of development history in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and an owner of a vacant property that cannot be utilized “as is” or redeveloped under the new Code in a shopping center that will continue to remain a conventional shopping center for decades to come, we know for a fact that the proposed Code amendment will not accomplish the City staff’s written stated goal of making interim redevelopment feasible. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments set out in this letter and the attachment. The business community needs the City’s help, and we look forward to working with you and staff on this important subject matter. Respectfully, Chris Costanzo Managing Member Real Estate Development, Acquisition and Management 17 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach CA, 92660 | t. 949.566.8021 | ccostanzo@costanzoinv.com Proposed Modifications to Code Amendment 1. Expand scope of proposed “major exceptions” in Title 17 to provide necessary flexibility to the following Code requirements: o All entrances must face the street (Sec. 17.130.030N). Most or all parcels need an entrance facing parking area as well. Also, all national chain tenants will want their main entrance in a shopping center facing the parking field. o 50% or greater of street-facing façade must consist of transparent window surface with no opaque, reflective or dark-tinted glass allowed (Sec. 17.130.030N). This is impossible for retailers and restaurants on a corner with two facades facing streets. o Edge of building must be at max 15 ft away from property line abutting both primary and secondary streets (e.g., Foothill and Miliken) (Build-to Lines, Table 17.130.50- 1). Impossible on corner parcels to physically comply with this requirement, shopping centers were also developed with and often require shopping center perimeter landscaping between public right of way and building envelope. o Building must span 80% of primary frontage width (e.g., Foothill Blvd) and 30% of second frontage width (e.g., Milken) (Building Placements, Table 17.130.50-1). Note can substitute up to 35% of this requirement with outdoor dining (Sec. 17.130.030G), but it’s still inadequate and the outdoor dining required in order to utilize the entire 35% exception would be too expansive. In the case of our rectangular 1.3 acre property, this requirement would require a building that is 240 ft wide. Even if outdoor dining was implemented to partially offset this, the building would still need to be around 160 ft wide with 70-80 linear ft of outdoor dining space (not practical). Combine this with restaurants’ need to have abundant surface parking to accommodate peak hour dining, this requirement is as fatal to shopping center pad redevelopment as the .6 FAR requirement the City is proposing to provide an exception to. o Parking must be 40 ft ostensibly from edge of development site line (as compared to street) (Parking Setbacks, Table 17.130.50-1). Centers were constructed for a parkway 40 ft from the street, so this would conflict with their CC&Rs, current configuration of the center, and would significantly and fatally decrease parking capacity for any viable retail redevelopment. o Allowed Building Types – for commercial limited to “Main Street” building type in Sec. 17.130.060, the depiction of which in Sec. 17.130.060C shows two stories and requires parking in the rear of the building. This design (two stories, parking behind) is incompatible with conventional shopping centers, in particular for an outparcel in an existing anchored suburban shopping center (including and especially corner outparcels - i.e., can’t park “in the rear” with respect to both streets). Most CC&Rs don’t allow it as well (because of anchor’s and adjacent shops’ visibility requirements). Real Estate Development, Acquisition and Management 17 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach CA, 92660 | t. 949.566.8021 | ccostanzo@costanzoinv.com 2.Eliminate the proposed requirement to demonstrate that the major exception provides for the least deviation possible from the development standards (proposed Sec. 17.20.070 C2). Requirement is vague and unnecessary, creating an additional layer of complexity and inflexibility that would frustrate applicants’ and the City’s ability to utilize the exception. 3. Eliminate the following proposed findings: o Finding that besides the major exception, the project is in compliance with all other applicable standards/requirements. It’s unnecessary and could tie the applicant’s and the City’s hands from being able to use other tools in the Code where needed (e.g., variance provision). In the case of our property, to redevelop it we would need a combination of Code exceptions and likely variances for other requirements because of physical and other constraints. This finding could be interpreted as precluding the use of any variances or other legislative tools meant to provide flexibility to development standards on a case by case basis. o Finding that the project is the least deviation from the associated requirement while meeting objectives of the Code. See comment above. * Please include this letter and attachment in the administrative record for the meeting and specifically Agenda Item D2. 4.Eliminate the proposed requirement that a community benefit be provided by the applicant if two or more major exceptions are provided. Our property (as well as most if not all commercial shopping center properties) would automatically fall into this category (e.g., needing an exception for the residential and FAR requirements). To start, if property owners are able to redevelop and lease the property to a going retail concern, that is a community benefit (much better than having homeless and blight on the corner of one of the City’s major intersections). In addition, the requirement is vague and unnecessary, penalizing commercial shopping center parcel owners who have no other option but to redevelop in a way that is compatible with the existing shopping center operations, tenant demand and CC&Rs, as well as being economically viable. City staff’s stated purpose of the Code amendment is to address the unintended consequences in promulgating the new Code, so utilizing these remedies should not trigger an additional burden or penalty on impacted commercial properties. The imposition of such a requirement would burden the property and deter any redevelopment and meaningful maintenance, which conflicts with the intended goal of the proposed Code amendments.